# Proposed outdoor smoking ban in NYC



## gehrig97

All parks, beaches, public plazas... wow. And to think, Bloomberg used to set up private smoking tents so he and his cronies could light up CC's at functions.

From the NYT:

_City Wants a Smoking Ban on Beaches
By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS
Beware all you New Yorkers and tourists who have yet to kick the habit.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who has already banned smoking in restaurants and bars, wants to prohibit it in much of the great outdoors: parks, beaches and even pedestrian malls and plazas like those around Times Square, on Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn and Broadway on the Upper West Side.

The proposed law, which is to be introduced to the City Council on Thursday, would cover all 1,700 parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities, and 14 miles of city beaches, as well as boardwalks, public marinas and the public pedestrian malls and plazas.

City health officials proposed a smoking ban in parks and beaches last year, but the mayor seemed to be caught off guard by the idea and did not immediately embrace it. But after he and his health commissioner, Dr. Thomas Farley, spent months looking at studies, Mr. Bloomberg delivered a broadside against secondhand smoke at a news conference on Wednesday and said that one poll showed 65 percent of adults were with him.

Research showed, he said, that someone seated within three feet of a smoker - even in the open air - was exposed to roughly the same levels of secondhand smoke as someone sitting indoors in the same situation.

"When New Yorkers and visitors go to parks and beaches for fresh air, there will actually be fresh air for them to breathe," the mayor said. "Most people don't like their beaches being used as ashtrays."

Mr. Bloomberg was something of a pioneer when he proposed the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants in 2002, but he noted that hundreds of cities and towns across the country, including Chicago and Los Angeles, have already banned smoking in parks and beaches. And the success of the restaurant and bar ban, which was fiercely debated at the time, has since gained widespread acceptance, and could dampen any outcry over the new proposal.

Still, Jack Regan, 49, an information technology worker and a casual smoker, was not jumping on board. "What do I have to do now, go sit in a hole in the wall?" Mr. Regan asked on Wednesday. "An underground cave? An underground fortress of shame?"

Lula Trainor, 28, a yoga teacher who quit smoking four years ago, pronounced the ban "stupid."

"It's outside, it's not like there's no ventilation," she said. "You can always walk away from a smoker, but they should have the choice to smoke."

But others welcomed the idea. Melissa Sullivan, 32, of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, said her 1-year-old daughter's playmate had picked a cigarette butt off the ground and almost put it in her mouth. "There is a baby boom in the neighborhood," Ms. Sullivan said. "As a mom, I don't want my baby to see smoking and think it's acceptable."

The proposal, which is to be introduced by Gale Brewer, a Democratic councilwoman from the Upper West Side, must be reviewed in public hearings before it can be adopted by the Council. Officials said there were some details yet to be worked out, including the amount of a fine, which is expected to be in the $50 range.

While it was known the mayor was thinking of prohibiting smoking at parks and beaches, Wednesday was the first time the mayor mentioned extending such a ban to the urban landscape of outdoor pedestrian areas.

Such plazas and malls have been sprouting across the city. The most celebrated ones are in Manhattan's commercial and tourist hub - the theater district, Times Square and Herald Square - where stretches of Broadway have been closed to cars and outfitted with cafe tables and chairs.

But the proposal would also cover dozens of other locations, city officials said, including plazas in Dumbo, Chelsea and Lower Manhattan, as well as so-called pedestrian malls in the middle of many large avenues.

At the news conference, the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, who supports the ban, was asked whether the police would give tickets to people who smoked while walking across pedestrian malls in crosswalks. She insisted the law was not meant to be a "gotcha."

"A question I know people are going to ask, 'Does this include me walking up and down the street?' " Ms. Quinn said. "The sidewalks are not part of this proposal." But, she added, "We do not want the person who's sitting at the little table - they can't smoke."_


----------



## Mhouser7

That is Friggin nutz!!!!!!

"Research showed, he said, that someone seated within three feet of a smoker - even in the open air - was exposed to roughly the same levels of secondhand smoke as someone sitting indoors in the same situation." BULL SHIT!!!!!!!

Where the hell did "MY USA" go??????? screw it, I cant get started on this topic my head will explode!


----------



## Rosie

It's just another way to score cheap political points against demonized smokers. I can buy, to some extent, the second hand smoke argument indoors. But outdoors? That's ridiculous. Especially with the thousands of vehicles stuck in traffic spewing crap into the air. 

It's just more incrementalism from the nanny state. Anyone ever see the film Demolition Man? The politically correct fascist society it showed seems to be coming to fruition.

Cheers,

Rosie


----------



## BillyVoltaire

This is totally getting out of hand.

BV


----------



## Whetto Garcia

I live in NY and used to be proud to live here. not so much anymore.
I draw the line when they try and ban smoking in outdoor PUBLIC places.
some freedom......


----------



## Whetto Garcia

"Research showed, he said, that someone seated within three feet of a smoker — even in the open air — was exposed to roughly the same levels of secondhand smoke as someone sitting indoors in the same situation."

thats horse crap, indoors the smoke lingers, outdoors it is diluted much faster. Im not buying it.


----------



## Dan-Hur

It's like people think that cancer is something you can catch like the cold. Walking by a smoker, even sitting next to one in a bar, is not going to give you cancer. It takes years of prolonged exposure.


----------



## dirletra

wow! i hate that! you can't defend yourself against criminals in NYC and now smoking?!


----------



## clintgeek

---snip---


----------



## zenbamboo

Part of me says they will never make it illegal outright because states know it is a cash cow for taxes. But on the other hand I would never have thought they could have passed the Prohibition Act of 1920. And if that is the case and they try that in my lifetime then I guess I am going gangsta!:gn


----------



## Whetto Garcia

I never agree with "the man"
if anything, there should be smoking areas and non smoking areas, because just as you have the right to clean air, I have the right to smoke. I dont like having my freedoms taken away.
out of all the crap that is in the air, especially in NYC, we are worried about smoking a cigarette or a cigar in a public park?....... c'mon. diesel fumes alone are terrible, I work with them all day long, and it kills me .and have asthma myself.


----------



## pomorider

Such Ban already exists in Vancouver, Canada. It is so lame that the the ban is place but no one know how to enforce this bylaw. The politicians are still arguing.


----------



## Jack Straw

clintgeek said:


> <soapbox> I know I'm not going to win any friends here, but, I agree with the Man on this. I mean, out of my family, I'm the only one who enjoys cigars. I don't smoke in front of my young children. I don't particularly want my young children exposed to smoking. My niece is asthmatic, even talking about smoke can send her into asphyxia. Bottom line is that smoking is a frowned upon habit by the majority of the voting public. If we wish to live peacefully among these people we have to do it by their rules. A little courtesy goes a long way in making sure that as cigar smokers we don't earn an even worse reputation and find the day where the laws get truly and honestly ridiculous. </soapbox>


While I respect your opinion, I find this very hypocritical. Hiding things from children is no way to educate them in my opinion.

Also, how is this NOT truly and honestly ridiculous? Restaurants and bars that aren't cigar bars or have separately ventilated areas I don't really have any great problem with, because it really does bother people and they can't really avoid it. But a park bench? If you don't want to sit next to a smoker on a park bench, go on to the next one. It's that simple. Lastly, the 'studies' this is based on are bullshit. Do the homework. This isn't about health. It is part of a pattern of political grandstanding that Bloomberg and his cronies have, which demonize honest citizens of his city that are just minding their own business but happen to be in a minority that the average bedwetting voter is for some reason disgusted by or scared of. For instance, recently they ran a "sting operation" going to sporting goods stores in Manhattan and seizing "illegal knives" saying that any one-handed opening pocket knife is a "dangerous gravity knife." Meanwhile, this is the same kind of pocket knife that 99.99% of the time is used as a tool all over the country, which is what it is. Oh, and the upshot is bloomberg's DA forced stores to pay a ton of money (4 years worth of profit on such knives) to the city. I wonder if the money had anything to do with calling the knives dangerous?? You tell me.


----------



## MoreBeer

It sort of wants to make me blow some smoke into Mike Bloomberg's face. Like most politician's, especially very wealthy ones, he's most likely nothing but a hypocrite whoremaster.


----------



## Herf N Turf

Jack Straw said:


> While I respect your opinion, I find this very hypocritical. Hiding things from children is no way to educate them in my opinion.
> 
> Also, how is this NOT truly and honestly ridiculous? Restaurants and bars that aren't cigar bars or have separately ventilated areas I don't really have any great problem with, because it really does bother people and they can't really avoid it. But a park bench? If you don't want to sit next to a smoker on a park bench, go on to the next one. It's that simple. Lastly, the 'studies' this is based on are bullshit. Do the homework. This isn't about health. It is part of a pattern of political grandstanding that Bloomberg and his cronies have, which demonize honest citizens of his city that are just minding their own business but happen to be in a minority that the average bedwetting voter is for some reason disgusted by or scared of. For instance, recently they ran a "sting operation" going to sporting goods stores in Manhattan and seizing "illegal knives" saying that any one-handed opening pocket knife is a "dangerous gravity knife." Meanwhile, this is the same kind of pocket knife that 99.99% of the time is used as a tool all over the country, which is what it is. Oh, and the upshot is bloomberg's DA forced stores to pay a ton of money (4 years worth of profit on such knives) to the city. I wonder if the money had anything to do with calling the knives dangerous?? You tell me.


Brilliant post and I agree 100%!

Ring Gauge incoming!

What's bothersome to me is not necessarily the ban on smoking, which is indeed ludicrous, but the erosive nature of such laws. They never dress it up as what it really is; removal of yet another freedom.


----------



## MoreBeer

Herf N Turf said:


> Brilliant post and I agree 100%!
> 
> _*Ring Gauge incoming!*_
> 
> What's bothersome to me is not necessarily the ban on smoking, which is indeed ludicrous, but the erosive nature of such laws. They never dress it up as what it really is; removal of yet another freedom.


Please, don't pass out ring gauge, the member receiving it might threaten to leave Puff! LOL!


----------



## GentlemanJester

Come on Steve, let's not take it down that road...


----------



## GentlemanJester

clintgeek said:


> <soapbox> I know I'm not going to win any friends here, but, I agree with the Man on this. I mean, out of my family, I'm the only one who enjoys cigars. I don't smoke in front of my young children. I don't particularly want my young children exposed to smoking. My niece is asthmatic, even talking about smoke can send her into asphyxia. Bottom line is that smoking is a frowned upon habit by the majority of the voting public. If we wish to live peacefully among these people we have to do it by their rules. A little courtesy goes a long way in making sure that as cigar smokers we don't earn an even worse reputation and find the day where the laws get truly and honestly ridiculous. </soapbox>


I have to agree with Andrew above, on the point that I think we've reached the day where the laws are truly and honestly ridiculous. Business owners can't decide if they want a legal activity to go on in THEIR business. Now they're trying to not let us smoke outside?

They don't have the guts to try and outlaw smoking, so they take these cheap shots.


----------



## Tritones

My brother sent me an e-mail the other day labeled, "mark your calendar." There was a picture of a calendar page for November. On Election Day was the jotted notation, "Take out the trash."

May not apply here - don't know if he's up for re-election.


----------



## Athion

clintgeek said:


> <soapbox> My niece is asthmatic, even talking about smoke can send her into asphyxia. </soapbox>


I dont want to pile on here, as you are as deserving of your opinion as anyone else. However, I wanted to point out this particular sentence. If this is truly the case, then at least some of her issue has to be psychosomatic. I would suggest looking into that, as it could help her out, if she is that "sensitive" (and that's an honest thought, no sarcasm or anything involved).

As has been mentioned this is all about control, and erosion of freedom and finding another way to get a few bucks more out of the people.

All these states, and even the federal Gov't put taxes on anything they think they can get away with, for example the $.40 or whatever it is per cigar. No one bitches but the minority of cigar smokers, and maybe a few just quit buying... or they buy from another state... or whatever. So the lawmakers end up with less money than they thought and so they raise the tax.

I'd like to see them try to get away with something that affects everyone, like a $.05 tax on dishwashing soap. I guarantee that wouldn't negatively impact anyone, and would raise FAR more money than any tobacco tax. It would just be ridiculously unpopular...

Allowing them to take away our outdoor, public right to smoke is a far slipperier slope than this hobby of ours. Whats next? Give them the precedent to outlaw something so fundamental, and they will not stop at just that.

They never do.


----------



## zenbamboo

I can respect if a business chooses to not allow smoking, but I don't think they should have ordinances that ban it in all businesses outright. Smoking in public places, especially well ventilated spaces shouldn't be banned. It is already illegal to litter, so I don't have a problem holding on to a nub until I can find a trash can. What I can see happening and I fear is a ban of smoking in all National Parks. That's the slippery slope for all of us.

I have always tried to be what I would call a socially considerate smoker. I would try to leave as much distance as reasonable between me and other people who clearly don't like the smoke. But they are the same ones who love the smell of lighter fluid on a bbq. And they drive cars. But you can't point that out. I knew one guy who loved the smell of formaldehyde glue, but get a cigarette withing a 1000 yards of him and his head would explode. Oh, and he loved the smell of the carbon burning from firing bullets. I think much of this hoopla is purely psychological. He was a former smoker for what its worth.


----------



## Brinson

As a young child, I was extremely asthmatic. I had to be rushed to the hospital quite a few times because I couldn't breathe. I did have problems with people smoking. It would set off my asthma.

I understand frustrations. Sooo many times I'd be sitting in the *non-smoking* section only to feel my chest tighten because someone had light up a cigarette in the wrong section. Was so annoying, beyond belief. Sometimes, I'd have to run home, if I had forgotten to bring my inhaler, and the evening was ruined. I could barely breathe and would become lightheaded from lack of oxygen.

Luckily, as I aged, my asthma disappeared except for under extreme duress from exercise or allergies.

That said, I find this law a bit silly. I don't know much about New York's parks, but...are they honestly that packed? That people can't walk away?

Though, as someone who smokes now, I will say I feel it is the smoker's responsibility to stay away from children. There should be a ticket for smoking within X feet of someone who has asked you not to. Restaurant, park, ect, ect. shouldn't matter.

Smoking shouldn't be banned in a place, but rather near people who don't want to be near it.

That's my opinion, anyway, as someone whose been on both sides.


----------



## Mhouser7

clintgeek said:


> <soapbox> I know I'm not going to win any friends here, but, I agree with the Man on this. I mean, out of my family, I'm the only one who enjoys cigars. I don't smoke in front of my young children. I don't particularly want my young children exposed to smoking. My niece is asthmatic, even talking about smoke can send her into asphyxia. Bottom line is that smoking is a frowned upon habit by the majority of the voting public. If we wish to live peacefully among these people we have to do it by their rules. A little courtesy goes a long way in making sure that as cigar smokers we don't earn an even worse reputation and find the day where the laws get truly and honestly ridiculous. </soapbox>


I'm not starting a argument here BUT... I {the smoker} am sitting on a park bench by myself smoking a cigar, then the non-smoker comes over and sits down at the bench... *Why is the smoker the person who has to leave? *When you Ban smoking outdoors, That in my mind has reached the point of ridiculous! I don't smoke around my children either EXCEPT when we are playing in the outdoors and I dare someone to tell me I am endangering my children by smoking in the same lawn as them!


----------



## zenbamboo

I also worry about Home Owners Associations coming up with smoking bans. Maybe I am paranoid, but that one could be a legal nightmare for us.


----------



## MoreBeer

GentlemanJester said:


> Come on Steve, let's not take it down that road...


Sorry...the set up for that one was just too good to resist.


----------



## Rosie

Tritones said:


> My brother sent me an e-mail the other day labeled, "mark your calendar." There was a picture of a calendar page for November. On Election Day was the jotted notation, "Take out the trash."
> 
> May not apply here - don't know if he's up for re-election.


He was just reelected a year ago after he had his cronies on the city council overturn the term limits that the people of New York City voted on. I don't know why they keep on voting for him. He obviously has no regard for laws if they inconvenience him.

Cheers,

Rosie


----------



## zeavran1

clintgeek said:


> <soapbox>
> A little courtesy goes a long way in making sure that as cigar smokers we don't earn an even worse reputation and find the day where the laws get truly and honestly ridiculous. </soapbox>


How much more courtesy do they want?? We've been tossed, beaten and thrown outside! How about showing us a little courtesy and have non-smokers stay the hell away from smoking areas if you don't want to smell smoke!


----------



## Mhouser7

zeavran1 said:


> How about showing us a little courtesy and have non-smokers stay the hell away from smoking areas if you don't want to smell smoke!


DING! DING! DING! :amen:

Edit: holy cow that was my 200th post!


----------



## Cletus

clintgeek said:


> <soapbox> I know I'm not going to win any friends here, but, I agree with the Man on this. I mean, out of my family, I'm the only one who enjoys cigars. I don't smoke in front of my young children. I don't particularly want my young children exposed to smoking. My niece is asthmatic, even talking about smoke can send her into asphyxia. Bottom line is that smoking is a frowned upon habit by the majority of the voting public. If we wish to live peacefully among these people we have to do it by their rules. A little courtesy goes a long way in making sure that as cigar smokers we don't earn an even worse reputation and find the day where the laws get truly and honestly ridiculous. </soapbox>


Sorry, but there's no room for logical, calm dialogue in this thread.






.


----------



## commonsenseman

At Clint. I'm sorry that laws like this don't bother you, I truly am. To me, absolute safety from everything possibly hazardous is something that's just not possible in this life. EVERYTHING causes cancer. Better to avoid driving a car, eating fast food, eating processed meat, drinking pop, using a microwave, cooking with high fructose corn syrup, coming in contact with asbestos, getting an x-ray, getting old, gaining weight, exposing yourself to chemicals, hair dye, diet pop, flouride, cell phones, tv, antiperspirant, bad genes, coming in contact with sunlight, or just having bad luck. Worst of all, avoid tobacco of all types as it will kill you right now!

It's truly a shame how negatively smoking is portrayed these days, there used to be a time when pipe smoking was cool (I still think it's cool). 

Tobacco is not as bad as it is made out to be, there are things that are much worse for you. If you're worried about the health effects, DON"T SMOKE. Don't push your morals on me, don't tell me where I can & can't use a LEGAL substance. Outlawing smoking in public places is just as ridiculous as outlawing smoking in privately owned restaurants, bars, etc. If you don't like that a place allows smoking, DON'T GO THERE. It should be up to the owners, not government bureaucrats. Despite what they tell you, they don't know best for you or anyone else.

I'm sorry if I'm ranting, but nothing pisses me off more than someone on a freaking SMOKING FORUM telling me how I should give up my personal freedoms just because it bothers people. Too bad. People chewing gum loudly bothers me, should we outlaw it in public places?

At Kevin, Andrew, Don, Seth, Mike, Mike & Scott. I agree.


----------



## Herf N Turf

As usual, WELL SAID, JEFFIE!!!!


----------



## Jack Straw

commonsenseman said:


> At Clint. I'm sorry that laws like this don't bother you, I truly am. To me, absolute safety from everything possibly hazardous is something that's just not possible in this life. EVERYTHING causes cancer. Better to avoid driving a car, eating fast food, eating processed meat, drinking pop, using a microwave, cooking with high fructose corn syrup, coming in contact with asbestos, getting an x-ray, getting old, gaining weight, exposing yourself to chemicals, hair dye, diet pop, flouride, cell phones, tv, antiperspirant, bad genes, coming in contact with sunlight, or just having bad luck. Worst of all, avoid tobacco of all types as it will kill you right now!
> 
> It's truly a shame how negatively smoking is portrayed these days, there used to be a time when pipe smoking was cool (I still think it's cool).
> 
> Tobacco is not as bad as it is made out to be, there are things that are much worse for you. If you're worried about the health effects, DON"T SMOKE. Don't push your morals on me, don't tell me where I can & can't use a LEGAL substance. Outlawing smoking in public places is just as ridiculous as outlawing smoking in privately owned restaurants, bars, etc. If you don't like that a place allows smoking, DON'T GO THERE. It should be up to the owners, not government bureaucrats. Despite what they tell you, they don't know best for you or anyone else.
> 
> I'm sorry if I'm ranting, but nothing pisses me off more than someone on a freaking SMOKING FORUM telling me how I should give up my personal freedoms just because it bothers people. Too bad. People chewing gum loudly bothers me, should we outlaw it in public places?
> 
> At Kevin, Andrew, Don, Seth, Mike, Mike & Scott. I agree.


Post of the year.


----------



## 1029henry

First Bloomberg outlaws salt shakers and cooking with hydrogenized oils in restaurants, so it is no wonder that he's all for a smoking ban. Living in California, I know all about nanny state do-gooders who love to suppress a good time. Seriously, there is not a law the politicians don't like. I cannot effing wait until November to hand out pink slips to these fools. The slow erosion of our liberties is dangerous and frustrating.


----------



## Herf N Turf

1029henry said:


> First Bloomberg outlaws salt shakers and cooking with hydrogenized oils in restaurants, so it is no wonder that he's all for a smoking ban. Living in California, I know all about nanny state do-gooders who love to suppress a good time. Seriously, there is not a law the politicians don't like. *I cannot effing wait until November to hand out pink slips to these fools.* The slow erosion of our liberties is dangerous and frustrating.


National Take Out The Trash Day!!!!!!!!!

Leave NO incumbent employed!


----------



## marked

clintgeek said:


> <soapbox> I know I'm not going to win any friends here, but, I agree with the Man on this. I mean, out of my family, I'm the only one who enjoys cigars. I don't smoke in front of my young children. I don't particularly want my young children exposed to smoking. My niece is asthmatic, even talking about smoke can send her into asphyxia. Bottom line is that smoking is a frowned upon habit by the majority of the voting public. *If we wish to live peacefully among these people we have to do it by their rules. A little courtesy goes a long way in making sure that as cigar smokers we don't earn an even worse reputation and find the day where the laws get truly and honestly ridiculous. * </soapbox>


I hate to break it to you, but the proposed law IS truly and honestly ridiculous. Banning smoking in an outdoor area? It doesn't get any more ventilated than that! You could be sitting in the grass 100ft from anyone, but because it's a park, you'll get ticketed. Does that sound like a reasonable law to you? NYC (and people everywhere) should worry more about the millions of automobiles in their cities spewing toxic gases than they do about a few tobacco smokers.


----------



## marked

1029henry said:


> First Bloomberg outlaws salt shakers and cooking with hydrogenized oils in restaurants


WHAAAAAAAAT?? :twitch:


----------



## Whetto Garcia

from wikipedia:

On 5 December 2006, New York became the first city in the United States to ban trans-fat from all restaurants. This went into effect in July 2006

In January 2010, the Bloomberg administration unveiled a plan to reduce the amount of salt in packages and food served at restaurants by 25 percent by 2015.


----------



## Athion

I was just watching an episode of Top Gear (English car show, think Car and Driver meets Monty Python) and two of the hosts were arguing about what was more dangerous, smoking or bike riding. 

The Smoker says "Ok, fine. Lets head out to the test track and I'll chain smoke while you peddle around the track. Let's see who dies first;" 

:evil:


----------



## Dan-Hur

> A little courtesy goes a long way in making sure that as cigar smokers we don't earn an even worse reputation and find the day where the laws get truly and honestly ridiculous.


I don't want to pile any more on you than everyone else has, but this kind of thing doesn't really fly. Courtesy doesn't convince people. The hatred for tobacco producers/consumers isn't spurred by rude smokers going around and blowing smoke in the faces of infants in their cradles. Politicians who want to increase taxes look for things that are easy to hate(like tobacco which kills three thirds of all users) because it's easy to get people worked up about it and convince them that "something has to be done!" Everyone enjoys something that isn't necessarily good for them. Unfortunately, some people only start to care when it's _their_ vice that's come under fire.


----------



## Mhouser7

commonsenseman said:


> At Clint. I'm sorry that laws like this don't bother you, I truly am. To me, absolute safety from everything possibly hazardous is something that's just not possible in this life. EVERYTHING causes cancer. Better to avoid driving a car, eating fast food, eating processed meat, drinking pop, using a microwave, cooking with high fructose corn syrup, coming in contact with asbestos, getting an x-ray, getting old, gaining weight, exposing yourself to chemicals, hair dye, diet pop, flouride, cell phones, tv, antiperspirant, bad genes, coming in contact with sunlight, or just having bad luck. Worst of all, avoid tobacco of all types as it will kill you right now!
> 
> It's truly a shame how negatively smoking is portrayed these days, there used to be a time when pipe smoking was cool (I still think it's cool).
> 
> Tobacco is not as bad as it is made out to be, there are things that are much worse for you. If you're worried about the health effects, DON"T SMOKE. Don't push your morals on me, don't tell me where I can & can't use a LEGAL substance. Outlawing smoking in public places is just as ridiculous as outlawing smoking in privately owned restaurants, bars, etc. If you don't like that a place allows smoking, DON'T GO THERE. It should be up to the owners, not government bureaucrats. Despite what they tell you, they don't know best for you or anyone else.
> 
> I'm sorry if I'm ranting, but nothing pisses me off more than someone on a freaking SMOKING FORUM telling me how I should give up my personal freedoms just because it bothers people. Too bad. People chewing gum loudly bothers me, should we outlaw it in public places?
> 
> At Kevin, Andrew, Don, Seth, Mike, Mike & Scott. I agree.





Jack Straw said:


> Post of the year.


 +1 vote on that one!


----------



## tpharkman

Courteous? courteous? court court courteous? Look where being courteous has gotten us...hereeep: here :tape: here :behindsofa:and finally...all the way down here:kicknuts:

Not an entirely eloquent or sophisticated response but I hope I got my point across.


----------



## Coffee-Cup

There has been a consistent process of taking away basic rights in the USA and I expect that it will continue.:shocked: Here in California we will have on the ballot in November a bill which would allow free use of Marijuana; you should note that I have never used this product. I will be voting in favor of this bill and if it passes it will be very entertaining.op2:


----------



## xJaCkSlApx

Smokers need a union.


----------



## Matt1951

The only thing Bloomberg did I agree with was banning hydrogenated vegetable oils. That is science, and there are acceptable alternatives. Bloomberg is the true do gooder, the old saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 
Marijuana should be legalized, it has proven anti-cancer properties. If I ever get cancer, damn right I would smoke it.


----------



## marked

Whetto Garcia said:


> from wikipedia:
> 
> On 5 December 2006, New York became the first city in the United States to ban trans-fat from all restaurants. This went into effect in July 2006
> 
> In January 2010, the Bloomberg administration unveiled a plan to reduce the amount of salt in packages and food served at restaurants by 25 percent by 2015.


The trans-fat thing....okay, that's a no-brainer and not hard to make happen.

But salt? I bet chefs all over the city want to strangle the guy. If you have high blood pressure or hypertension, by all means, avoid salt. But salt doesn't cause high blood pressure or hypertension if you don't already have it. Your body is an amazing thing, and the hormones that regulate sodium content in the body will simply up-regulate and get rid of it.

What a crock of shit. Dont' they have better things to worry about in NYC?


----------



## Jack Straw

marked said:


> But salt? I bet chefs all over the city want to strangle the guy. If you have high blood pressure or hypertension, by all means, avoid salt. But salt doesn't cause high blood pressure or hypertension if you don't already have it. Your body is an amazing thing, and the hormones that regulate sodium content in the body will simply up-regulate and get rid of it.


A state official of some sort tried a while back to introduce a bill that would ban the use of salt in cooking in restaurants. The only salt would be in shakers on tables. People really sharpened their pitchforks for that one. Thank goodness I'm moving away somewhat soon.


----------



## zeavran1

Matt1951 said:


> The only thing Bloomberg did I agree with was banning hydrogenated vegetable oils. That is science, and there are acceptable alternatives. Bloomberg is the true do gooder, the old saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
> Marijuana should be legalized, it has proven anti-cancer properties. If I ever get cancer, damn right I would smoke it.


Easy to say when you don't live in NY. Bloomberg's ego is taking him to god status. His "good intentions" turned to a healthy hatred of those that disagree with him. How did us New Yorkers live without him all these years?


----------



## Kevin Keith

I would stand right outside the front door of the Cordoba "Center" (*if* they ever build it), smoking a Brazilia Anaconda and only blow out the smoke when they opened the door. No, wait. Make that a Guantanamera. They might like the smell of the Brazilia. Stoopid Bloomberg. Y'all move on down here to Texas. We still have room.


----------



## sirxlaughs

commonsenseman said:


> At Clint. I'm sorry that laws like this don't bother you, I truly am. To me, absolute safety from everything possibly hazardous is something that's just not possible in this life. EVERYTHING causes cancer. Better to avoid driving a car, eating fast food, eating processed meat, drinking pop, using a microwave, cooking with high fructose corn syrup, coming in contact with asbestos, getting an x-ray, getting old, gaining weight, exposing yourself to chemicals, hair dye, diet pop, flouride, cell phones, tv, antiperspirant, bad genes, coming in contact with sunlight, or just having bad luck. Worst of all, avoid tobacco of all types as it will kill you right now!
> 
> It's truly a shame how negatively smoking is portrayed these days, there used to be a time when pipe smoking was cool (I still think it's cool).
> 
> Tobacco is not as bad as it is made out to be, there are things that are much worse for you. If you're worried about the health effects, DON"T SMOKE. Don't push your morals on me, don't tell me where I can & can't use a LEGAL substance. Outlawing smoking in public places is just as ridiculous as outlawing smoking in privately owned restaurants, bars, etc. If you don't like that a place allows smoking, DON'T GO THERE. It should be up to the owners, not government bureaucrats. Despite what they tell you, they don't know best for you or anyone else.
> 
> I'm sorry if I'm ranting, but nothing pisses me off more than someone on a freaking SMOKING FORUM telling me how I should give up my personal freedoms just because it bothers people. Too bad. People chewing gum loudly bothers me, should we outlaw it in public places?
> 
> At Kevin, Andrew, Don, Seth, Mike, Mike & Scott. I agree.


+1 Great post.


----------



## Cypress

Moved to Tobacco Legislation Forum.


----------



## gehrig97

It's funny... as I was walking to work yesterday, I was stuck behind at least two or three people smoking cigarettes (if you live/work in NY, you know what I mean... you're doing the NY speedwalk to work at 8:00 am, the sidewalks are jammed, you're trapped behind a cigarette smoker who's walking too slow, etc etc). I'll admit--and I started this thread--that for a split second I thought "You know what? Maybe the ban isn't so bad..." Especially when you see the millions--really, the _millions_--of cigarette butts that have become permanent fixtures of the city streets.

But then I realized, if the ban goes through, I wouldn't be able to take my Tatuaje Petite Cazadores Reserva over to Bryant Park at lunch and relax for 45 minutes, watching the pretty girls.

Ban Bad.


----------



## dirletra

This reminds me of a Beck episode last week about "NUDGING" americans to stop doing things. Prohibition didnt work out too well, so they'll nudge:
Beck: From Fries to Riots - Video - FoxNews.com


----------



## Dan-Hur

Matt1951 said:


> The only thing Bloomberg did I agree with was banning hydrogenated vegetable oils. That is science, and there are acceptable alternatives. Bloomberg is the true do gooder, the old saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
> Marijuana should be legalized, it has proven anti-cancer properties. If I ever get cancer, damn right I would smoke it.


Banning vegetable oil but legalizing marijuana? Really? "Go ahead and get high but those brownies better be made with canola oil or it's the f*** chair for you!" I'm sorry, I'm not against legalizing marijuana, but either you're for ridiculous/numerous laws and bans or you're not. It's not okay(in my mind) to ban one thing because _you_ find it reasonable but then turn around and get up in arms when the hammer comes down on you. There are alternatives to vegetable oil, but as individuals with free will, it's our prerogative to choose whether or not we use them.


----------



## Matt1951

Dan-Hur said:


> Banning vegetable oil but legalizing marijuana? Really? "Go ahead and get high but those brownies better be made with canola oil or it's the f*** chair for you!" I'm sorry, I'm not against legalizing marijuana, but either you're for ridiculous/numerous laws and bans or you're not. It's not okay(in my mind) to ban one thing because _you_ find it reasonable but then turn around and get up in arms when the hammer comes down on you. There are alternatives to vegetable oil, but as individuals with free will, it's our prerogative to choose whether or not we use them.


Clearly I am better informed than you are. Big agra (including P&G) has severely damaged humans (not just Americans) health with crap like hydrogenated soybean and corn oil. Started around 1920.

You have to read the research to be informed. I will provide you links if you have an open mind.


----------



## Whetto Garcia

Monsanto is the devil....


----------



## Matt1951

Whetto Garcia said:


> Monsanto is the devil....


TRUE!


----------



## Dan-Hur

Matt1951 said:


> Clearly I am better informed than you are. Big agra (including P&G) has severely damaged humans (not just Americans) health with crap like hydrogenated soybean and corn oil. Started around 1920.
> 
> You have to read the research to be informed. I will provide you links if you have an open mind.


Slow down there, Matt, there's no need to get hostile. I'm assuming you're a smoker since you're on this forum. Given that, you probably know that smoking of all kinds has been linked to different diseases. Cigar smoking is linked to cancer and, indeed, so is marijuana. Many daily items have been stigmatized as being linked to cancer. Regardless, many people still use these things, myself included, and some more than others. That is what free will and self-governance are all about. Free will allows me to enjoy a couple of fine cigars a week and self-governance keeps me from sucking down twenty to thirty packs of cigarettes a day. My point wasn't that trans fats and certain oils are harmless, only that you have no right to tell others not to consume them if they so desire and least of all while you're participating in an unhealthy activity.


----------



## Matt1951

Dan-Hur said:


> Slow down there, Matt, there's no need to get hostile. I'm assuming you're a smoker since you're on this forum. Given that, you probably know that smoking of all kinds has been linked to different diseases. Cigar smoking is linked to cancer and, indeed, so is marijuana. Many daily items have been stigmatized as being linked to cancer. Regardless, many people still use these things, myself included, and some more than others. That is what free will and self-governance are all about. Free will allows me to enjoy a couple of fine cigars a week and self-governance keeps me from sucking down twenty to thirty packs of cigarettes a day. My point wasn't that trans fats and certain oils are harmless, only that you have no right to tell others not to consume them if they so desire and least of all while you're participating in an unhealthy activity.


I didn't mean to come across as hostile. Scan "The Health Benefits of Tobacco" by William Campbell Douglass in amazon. I do smoke cigars. They are beneficial for my health. Even in the original Surgeon General report in 1964 which linked cigarette smoking to cancer, cigars were given a pass if you smoke less than five a day. Increasing risk of oral cancer the more you smoke. So, smoke one or two a day. There are many health benefits, well documented by Dr. Douglass.
Marijuana smokers have no increased risk of any type of cancer. The US just completed a major study,the marijuana smokers have a slightly reduced risk of lung cancer. The guess is that the anti-cancer properties of marijuana offset any harmful effect of smoke. But, there is NO link between cigar smoking and lung cancer, even for those who inhale. 
Transfats are highly unnatural products, which were foisted on the public without adequate testing. We were the guinea pigs. They should be banned. If you want to eat oils that are safe, go ahead and eat olive oil. The evidence is clear, and all the major fast food restaurants replaced them of their own free will, once they saw the clear medical evidence. 
But, sorry if I sounded harsh. So much claptrap has been foisted on the public, I get angry. Corporate profits are ALWAYS put first. Until there is overwhelming evidence otherwise. Why do you think there is a world wide obesity epidemic? The US has been smoking fewer cigarettes, but lung cancer did not decrease. Why?
To be healthy - drink coffee, drink wine, smoke cigars, avoid soy, eat red meat. Stay low carb.


----------



## Mhouser7

Matt1951 said:


> Transfats are highly unnatural products, which were foisted on the public without adequate testing. We were the guinea pigs. They should be banned. If you want to eat oils that are safe, go ahead and eat olive oil. The evidence is clear, and all the major fast food restaurants replaced them of their own free will, once they saw the clear medical evidence.


It doesn't matter .... It (SHOULD BE) my choice to eat these products if I choose to. Why do we need another law "protecting" me?

I'll gladly pay my taxes for the fire dept. , roads, schools ect. BUT stay the hell out of my life and stop telling me what to eat, drink, smoke, ect (pointed toward our government)

AND I'm not going to stay low carb..... I love my big ole baked potato with my med-rare 42 day aged black Angus sirloin steak and a slice of toasted Texas toast.


----------



## Dan-Hur

Matt1951 said:


> The evidence is clear, and all the major fast food restaurants replaced them of their own free will, once they saw the clear medical evidence.


That's my point, though. They chose on their own to stop using them because they were educated. I don't have a problem with educating people on the risks and then allowing them to come to their own conclusions. Bans like these don't do that, they just force people to comply with what others see as the right way to live. It's fine for people to decide on their own that they want to live a certain way, it's not fine for them to force their decisions on others.


----------



## marked

Matt1951 said:


> Even in the original Surgeon General report in 1964 which linked cigarette smoking to cancer, cigars were given a pass if you smoke less than five a day.


You're really going to reference the Surgeon General's report from over 40 years ago as proof?



> To be healthy - drink coffee, drink wine, smoke cigars, avoid soy, eat red meat. *Stay low carb.*


I would agree with most of this. However, there's no reason to avoid carbohydrates. Rule of thumb... take in sufficient amounts of protein (1g/lb of lean body mass, and even soy in the range of 20g a day is fine) and fats (.5g/lb of lbm, including at least 2g of EFA's), and fill the rest of your daily calorie consumption with whatever type of carbohydrate you want to eat. And that can even include HFCS. <gasp> Yep...I said it.


----------



## Matt1951

Dan-Hur said:


> That's my point, though. They chose on their own to stop using them because they were educated. I don't have a problem with educating people on the risks and then allowing them to come to their own conclusions. Bans like these don't do that, they just force people to comply with what others see as the right way to live. It's fine for people to decide on their own that they want to live a certain way, it's not fine for them to force their decisions on others.


Tobacco, which has many health benefits, has been demonized. So, you have been educated as to the risks.
Hydrogenated vegetable oils, you were never informed. Therefore, it is fair to ban. Notice, rather than admit they (the govt) were wrong for decades, and have done severe harm to human health, they are quietly trying to back out of hydrogenated vegetable oils. Think of all the law suits against P&G if people became aware of what had been done to them.

I had decades long gum disease, which was cured by cigar smoke. Gum disease is linked to heart disease, so I may have saved my heart by smoking cigars. Using Listerine never worked, and also has a higher risk of causing oral cancer.


----------



## Rosie

All things in moderation. A cigar, a glass of bourbon or a Big Mac every now and then won't kill you. Life is too short not to enjoy the little things. At least that's how I feel.

Cheers,

Rosie


----------



## Tritones

marked said:


> And that can even include HFCS. <gasp> Yep...I said it.


Yeah, it _can,_ but why _should_ it, when there are so many better options that don't support a tragically-flawed food production/management policy?


----------



## Jack Straw

Matt1951 said:


> Clearly I am better informed than you are. Big agra (including P&G) has severely damaged humans (not just Americans) health with crap like hydrogenated soybean and corn oil. Started around 1920.
> 
> You have to read the research to be informed. I will provide you links if you have an open mind.


Don't get me started on the food industry. A good idea for anyone interested in knowing what they are eating is to watch the movie Food, Inc. If you are skeptical/closed-minded by nature, you may not to believe everything in it, but you will see things with your own eyes that may change the way you view the food industry. It is on netflix instant view. It does not touch on HFCS or trans fat, though. It's more about the chemicals that you eat every day, and the corporate exploitation of American workers that your food money supports.



marked said:


> You're really going to reference the Surgeon General's report from over 40 years ago as proof?


It's not the only study that says that, it just happens to be the most well known. They pretty much all say the same thing about cigars and pipes. There are some pretty good literature reviews out there. Do the homework!


----------



## marked

Tritones said:


> Yeah, it _can,_ but why _should_ it, when *there are so many better options *that don't support a tragically-flawed food production/management policy?


Better in what way? I don't disagree that food production and management in this country is totally screwed, but how is any other sugar better than HFCS? Food production companies would argue that HFCS is cheaper to produce and more stable, therefore it keeps food costs down.


----------



## Tritones

marked said:


> Better in what way? I don't disagree that food production and management in this country is totally screwed, but how is any other sugar better than HFCS? Food production companies would argue that HFCS is cheaper to produce and more stable, therefore it keeps food costs down.


Better in not supporting the ridiculous notion that just because something _can_ be made from corn, it _should_ be. HFCS is nothing but another in a long line of laboratory products developed to use up excess corn production.

I suggest that the burden of proof is not on the one advocating raw sugar, honey, agave nectar, or even stevia - fairly simple foods - as superior to a product manufactured from chemically-altered corn starch. In other words, I don't _have_ to prove HFCS is inferior - I can presume it is until proven otherwise. Anything produced as a "better" alternative to nature-produced foods should automatically be suspect, not welcomed. One proof of this is the fact that Americans don't know how to eat without nutritionists, doctors, authors, and Oprah. Export the American diet and see diabetes, heart disease, and obesity rates soar. Proven fact, worldwide. The same people who created the American way of eating are the ones who created HFCS. Therefore _they_ need to prove their case, not me.

It's up to the "food" industry to make their case, and they haven't. HFCS is cheap only because the US government has decided it should be. Because the US government has decided that _corn_ must be cheap, in spite of the real cost of producing it. Based upon real cost, there is _no way_ a laboratory-generated modified corn starch derivative is cheaper than other, more simply-refined sweeteners.

As far as nutritional issues, there is an extent to which sugars are sugars are sugars, and to that extent, HFCS is probably just another sugar. Especially for someone who stays within the guidelines you set out, which only a small minority do, but that's not entirely the fault of HFCS. Some research hints that HFCS may create an appetite for more sugar, but as far as I'm concerned, the jury is out.

Sorry for the :anim_soapbox: - I care about food. I eat too much of it, but I care about what goes into it. And I care about how it's produced. Even if HFCS is innocent of all other charges leveled against it, it is the product of a corrupt, ecologically and economically destructive production chain which I refuse to support any more than I can help.


----------



## Matt1951

I think the US checked HFCS on the shelf and it had unsafe levels of arsenic in it, used in manufacture, but not supposed to be in the syrup itself. The only reason we have HFCS is because Iowa is the first 'primary', which results in massive corn subsidies. The case is building against HFCS all the time. Eventually it will be banned. Fructose is not processed in the body the same as other sugars. The human body never evolved to process massive amounts of fructose. It takes a lot of corn to make HFCS, eating corn is good for you, just avoid all HFCS.


----------



## marked

Tritones said:


> Better in not supporting the ridiculous notion that just because something _can_ be made from corn, it _should_ be. HFCS is nothing but another in a long line of laboratory products developed to use up excess corn production.
> 
> I suggest that the burden of proof is not on the one advocating raw sugar, honey, agave nectar, or even stevia - fairly simple foods - as superior to a product manufactured from chemically-altered corn starch. In other words, I don't _have_ to prove HFCS is inferior - I can presume it is until proven otherwise. Anything produced as a "better" alternative to nature-produced foods should automatically be suspect, not welcomed. One proof of this is the fact that Americans don't know how to eat without nutritionists, doctors, authors, and Oprah. Export the American diet and see diabetes, heart disease, and obesity rates soar. Proven fact, worldwide. The same people who created the American way of eating are the ones who created HFCS. Therefore _they_ need to prove their case, not me.
> 
> It's up to the "food" industry to make their case, and they haven't. HFCS is cheap only because the US government has decided it should be. Because the US government has decided that _corn_ must be cheap, in spite of the real cost of producing it. Based upon real cost, there is _no way_ a laboratory-generated modified corn starch derivative is cheaper than other, more simply-refined sweeteners.
> 
> As far as nutritional issues, there is an extent to which sugars are sugars are sugars, and to that extent, HFCS is probably just another sugar. Especially for someone who stays within the guidelines you set out, which only a small minority do, but that's not entirely the fault of HFCS. Some research hints that HFCS may create an appetite for more sugar, but as far as I'm concerned, the jury is out.
> 
> Sorry for the :anim_soapbox: - I care about food. I eat too much of it, but I care about what goes into it. And I care about how it's produced. Even if HFCS is innocent of all other charges leveled against it, it is the product of a corrupt, ecologically and economically destructive production chain which I refuse to support any more than I can help.


I have to say that I don't disagree with anything you've said here. My problem comes from those that grab onto media soundbites and proclaim, "HFCS and carbz dun maked me fatz!" while they're shoving a box of ho-hos down their throat and washing it down with a Mega Big Gulp.

Anyone truly interested in this subject should start by watching "Food, Inc.", then reading books like "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and "In Defense of Food."


----------



## Tritones

Matt1951 said:


> I think the US checked HFCS on the shelf and it had unsafe levels of arsenic in it, used in manufacture, but not supposed to be in the syrup itself. The only reason we have HFCS is because Iowa is the first 'primary', which results in massive corn subsidies. The case is building against HFCS all the time. Eventually it will be banned. Fructose is not processed in the body the same as other sugars. The human body never evolved to process massive amounts of fructose. It takes a lot of corn to make HFCS, eating corn is good for you, just avoid all HFCS.


What he said - except some reservation about eating corn. Human body doesn't get all that much nutrition from corn as opposed to many other grains. But it's good to include a small amount in the diet for variety.

we now return you to your regularly-scheduled thread, "Proposed outdoor smoking ban in NYC," already in progress... :smoke2:


----------



## Tritones

marked said:


> I have to say that I don't disagree with anything you've said here. My problem comes from those that grab onto media soundbites and proclaim, "HFCS and carbz dun maked me fatz!" while they're shoving a box of ho-hos down their throat and washing it down with a Mega Big Gulp.
> 
> Anyone truly interested in this subject should start by watching "Food, Inc.", then reading books like "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and "In Defense of Food."


That there is a lot of truth. 5000 daily calories intake and 800 daily calories burned = big fat ass, no matter what kind of food you eat. I only have to look in the mirror to prove it. Except that my ass isn't really fat - I am genetically impervious to a fat ass. I have weighed almost 230 pounds and still had a butt too bony to sit on comfortably. But I digress. As usual.

Haven't seen the movie, but I've read Pollan's books - the two best books I hesitate to recommend that anyone read. They can really piss you off and screw with your whole lifestyle. Changed mine drastically.

We now return you to ... oh, hell, who am I kidding?


----------



## marked

Matt1951 said:


> I think the US checked HFCS on the shelf and it had unsafe levels of arsenic in it, used in manufacture, but not supposed to be in the syrup itself. The only reason we have HFCS is because Iowa is the first 'primary', which results in massive corn subsidies. The case is building against HFCS all the time. Eventually it will be banned. Fructose is not processed in the body the same as other sugars. The human body never evolved to process massive amounts of fructose. It takes a lot of corn to make HFCS, eating corn is good for you, just avoid all HFCS.


But there aren't "massive" amounts of fructose in HFCS.


----------



## Tritones

marked said:


> But there aren't "massive" amounts of fructose in HFCS.


You're right - there's not much more fructose in HFCS than in plain sugar (even less in the HFCS usually used in baking).

The problem is in quantity consumed, which is not necessarily the fault of HFCS. Eat the same amount of table sugar in a day and you get just as much fructose. Whether or not there is some advantage to the need to break the sucrose molecule into glucose and fructose is debatable - this happens pretty readily in the presence of a weak acid - such as stomach juices.

However, because the food industrry has to create a market for corn, HFCS is in practically everything, even scores of things that would not contain sweetener if that sweetener came at an unsubsidized cost.

So, yes, HFCS is overabundant and a health risk. But not because of its composition - instead it's because of the US food/farm/government policy.

We now notify you that we have no intention of returning this thread to its original course. If you're lucky, we'll end up in Cuba for a cigar-buying party.


----------



## marked

Tritones said:


> You're right - there's not much more fructose in HFCS than in plain sugar (even less in the HFCS usually used in baking).
> 
> The problem is in quantity consumed, which is not necessarily the fault of HFCS. Eat the same amount of table sugar in a day and you get just as much fructose. Whether or not there is some advantage to the need to break the sucrose molecule into glucose and fructose is debatable - this happens pretty readily in the presence of a weak acid - such as stomach juices.
> 
> However, because the food industrry has to create a market for corn, HFCS is in practically everything, even scores of things that would not contain sweetener if that sweetener came at an unsubsidized cost.
> 
> So, yes, HFCS is overabundant and a health risk. But not because of its composition - instead it's because of the US food/farm/government policy.


Exactly! It all comes back to the government's involvement in the food industry. Or, should I say, the food industry's involvement in government.



> We now notify you that we have no intention of returning this thread to its original course. If you're lucky, we'll end up in Cuba for a cigar-buying party.


:whoo::banana::woohoo::rockon: ound:


----------



## Plop007

Coffee-Cup said:


> There has been a consistent process of taking away basic rights in the USA and I expect that it will continue.:shocked: Here in California we will have on the ballot in November a bill which would allow free use of Marijuana; you should note that I have never used this product. I will be voting in favor of this bill and if it passes it will be very entertaining.op2:


I'm as well looking forward to the November ballot here in CA.



Rosie said:


> All things in moderation. A cigar, a glass of bourbon or a Big Mac every now and then won't kill you. Life is too short not to enjoy the little things. At least that's how I feel.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rosie


Amen


----------



## golfermd

Hmmm. Second hand smoke and smell. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't smoking marijuana produce, gulp, smoke??!! Bunch of bleeping hypocrites. I'd rather smell the smoke coming from a cigar or a pipe any day of the week than from marijuana. Are the pinheads in the state and fed going to pass a law that it is quite legal to smoke marijuana outdoors and in public establishements, but make it illegal to do the same with pipes and cigars? :anim_soapbox:


----------



## Coffee-Cup

golfermd said:


> Hmmm. Second hand smoke and smell. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't smoking marijuana produce, gulp, smoke??!! Bunch of bleeping hypocrites. I'd rather smell the smoke coming from a cigar or a pipe any day of the week than from marijuana. Are the pinheads in the state and fed going to pass a law that it is quite legal to smoke marijuana outdoors and in public establishements, but make it illegal to do the same with pipes and cigars? :anim_soapbox:


Dan! I agree with you about the hypocrisy about this situation and that is exactly why if this bill passes; it will be so entertaining.op2:


----------



## Rosie

golfermd said:


> Hmmm. Second hand smoke and smell. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't smoking marijuana produce, gulp, smoke??!! Bunch of bleeping hypocrites. I'd rather smell the smoke coming from a cigar or a pipe any day of the week than from marijuana. Are the pinheads in the state and fed going to pass a law that it is quite legal to smoke marijuana outdoors and in public establishements, but make it illegal to do the same with pipes and cigars? :anim_soapbox:


Didn't you get the memo? Tobacco is EVIL!!! :nono:

Cheers,

Rosie


----------



## xJaCkSlApx

A message from comrade Big Brother: " Global warming is lurking . We all know what this means ! anything that produces Co2 will be taxed for combustion this includes more food taxes and human Co2 ( farts included ) "


----------



## nanotech

I stay out of this forum because I get ulcers thinking of how stupid people are. I can't believe how we've traded freedom for a nanny state. Both parties are to blame, and many people I know figure...I don't smoke, so sure, let's ban smoking. They don't realize this is a dangerous path for our way of life as we know it. I think people are waking up finally though....it just might be too late.


----------



## commonsenseman

nanotech said:


> ...I don't smoke, so sure, let's ban smoking...


"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."


----------



## xJaCkSlApx

commonsenseman said:


> "They came first for the Communists,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
> 
> Then they came for the trade unionists,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
> 
> Then they came for the Jews,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
> 
> Then they came for me
> and by that time no one was left to speak up."


For the Manifesto! Even though the Utopia is lala land


----------



## zeavran1

commonsenseman said:


> "They came first for the Communists,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
> 
> Then they came for the trade unionists,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
> 
> Then they came for the Jews,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
> 
> Then they came for me
> and by that time no one was left to speak up."


This sums it all up Jeff. Freedoms are taken away a little at a time. Do it too fast and people will take notice.


----------



## Zogg

marked said:


> I have to say that I don't disagree with anything you've said here. My problem comes from those that grab onto media soundbites and proclaim, "HFCS and carbz dun maked me fatz!" while they're shoving a box of ho-hos down their throat and washing it down with a Mega Big Gulp.
> 
> Anyone truly interested in this subject should start by watching "Food, Inc.", then reading books like "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and "In Defense of Food."


all good suggestions. i grow as much of my own food as possible - but i really cant right now cause im taking college classes so im living in an apartment :/


----------



## Russell Pta

commonsenseman said:


> "They came first for the Communists,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
> 
> Then they came for the trade unionists,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
> 
> Then they came for the Jews,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
> 
> Then they came for me
> and by that time no one was left to speak up."


great post. i've seen similar ones a lot lately on firearms forums. they dont go for all of them at once. just the pistols then the assault rifles. they dont want to tick the majority off. same goes with tobacco as you all know.


----------



## Hfdpipe

has this already been passed and is in effect now? From what I read he has the votes with the city council and has shot down any form of compromise by any rational city council members. Another thing that doesn't make sense is, doesn't it make more sense to smoke in an open area rather than a congested sidewalk, where more people are.

Wonder how long before he's unsatisfied and decides to go after Nat Sherman.


----------



## marked

I think all smokers should engage in civil disobedience if this passes. A big herf in the middle of Central Park should kick things off right. 

I signed the petition against this, and actually got responses back. Most were pretty generic, but one lady voiced her opposition to smokers and was only concerned with the logistics of enforcing it.


----------



## petp

I was upset when they first banned smoking in bars, but actually kinda like it now. at the very least, its a great conversation starter with the girls when you go outside for a smoke.  oh, and i know a few bars/clubs that allow you to smoke indoors after a certain hour (11pm-ish or so), so its not THAT bad right now. 
but come'on...banning smoking outdoors??? that just stupid.

(oh, and its my first post...nice to be here) eace:


----------



## christian1971

You can have an abortion but not a smoke.


----------



## tupacboy

so they'll sell you cigarettes but you can't smoke them unless ur home... so basically new yorkers are gonna smoke while on the can only?


----------



## Rosie

christian1971 said:


> You can have an abortion but not a smoke.


Yeah, but I'm pretty sure you can't get an abortion in parks or beaches either. :tape2:

Cheers,

Rosie


----------



## marked

Rosie said:


> Yeah, but I'm pretty sure you can't get an abortion in parks or beaches either. :tape2:
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rosie


See? They're just taking away one right after another.

:lol:


----------



## Arnie

I usually stay away from this section because it pisses me off so much.

The government has a responsibility to protect us from outside enemies, from criminals, to provide infrastructure so that commerce can take place, to reasonably regulate but not over-regulate commerce. The government should provide for education, but not with the present monopoly it maintains.......example: in an international study the USA came in last in math skills but first in self-confidence regarding math skills.

The government has absolutely NO business regulating salt or fat intake, or imposing "sin" taxes to try to control our behavior. They should not be taking money from some and giving it to others. There should be no coersive legislation: such as tax incentives to get us out of our cars and onto busses, etc. On and on.

The problem is we have let them have too much power. Because we haven't spoken up, the legislators, courts and White House have taken our silence as a tacit agreement. We've essentially consented to their control. And we see now that they will never stop, they'll never say: OK that's good, carry on. The regulations will keep coming.

It's time to tell them: Enough is enough! Leave us alone! Keep your hands off my cigars, my salt shaker, my french fries! Take your Utopian Dream World and SHOVE it!!!


----------



## costaricacigarstore

The reasons I left NYC and moved to Costa Rica-

5- Taxes
4- Unaffordable Parking Tickets
3- Silly Laws and the Nanny State (NYC used to be fun!!)
2- Schlepping to work on a standing room only subway to a job I hated 
1- Midlife crises

Pura Vida!


----------



## Plop007

any news on this lately? ;0


----------



## Sarge

costaricacigarstore said:


> The reasons I left NYC and moved to Costa Rica-
> 
> 5- Taxes
> 4- Unaffordable Parking Tickets
> 3- Silly Laws and the Nanny State (NYC used to be fun!!)
> 2- Schlepping to work on a standing room only subway to a job I hated
> 1- Midlife crises
> 
> Pura Vida!


got a spare room and job lined up for me? I'll only leach for a year or two then I'll come back home to my pathetic job.  Costa Rica sounds like a place to live for a while. Nice & warm, there's got to be some hotties running around, good cigars...


----------



## costaricacigarstore

Sarge,

Its a comfortable temperature, and there is certainly wonderful, flirtatious, fun Chicas and great cigars. I just do not have a spare room or a job to offer. 

Then again the rent here is cheap and its not any fun having a job.

Enjoy the commute!


----------



## smelvis

costaricacigarstore said:


> Sarge,
> 
> Its a comfortable temperature, and there is certainly wonderful, flirtatious, fun Chicas and great cigars. I just do not have a spare room or a job to offer.
> 
> Then again the rent here is cheap and its not any fun having a job.
> 
> Enjoy the commute!


Been there a bunch of times brother you one of the lucky Gringos to have a job WTG

Bet we know people in common you say your in San Jose anywhere near the gulch ? LOL

I miss it in fact if I can get my back fixed I will be visiting I miss it so damn much, I am still on a CR board and check it all the time for news and to keep up with things. How is Laura treating the Country bro?

Can I ask what you do? you can answer in Pm if you want.

Thanks I am Jealous

Dave


----------



## veteranvmb

Rosie said:


> Yeah, but I'm pretty sure you can't get an abortion in parks or beaches either. :tape2:
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rosie


 I guess you have never been to a park or beach in nyc. LOL

J


----------



## Rosie

veteranvmb said:


> I guess you have never been to a park or beach in nyc. LOL
> 
> J


I've seen many things in NYC parks and beaches, but never an abortion. I've seen a few people who ought to have been aborted, but that's another story entirely.

Cheers,

Rosie


----------



## Mante

> I've seen a few people who ought to have been aborted


ound:ound:ound: Those buggers are everywhere. I think ten percent of the worlds quota of them reside close to me. :mischief::tape:


----------



## costaricacigarstore

Smelvis,

Sorry I have not replied earlier I have been very busy and have not been on the Cigar forums.

The answers to your questions:

Where? Just a few miles North of San Jose. (A short ride to The gulch).

How? The Costa Rica Cigar Store costaricacigarstore. com (I have not had enough posts to add the link). Best International Cigar Store - The Costa Rica Cigar Store[/url].

(I am also trying to export Rocking chairs but the shipping is difficult.)

I am a construction worker who received a severance a bit a go and I am starting my new life. I have lived in The Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens and I love NYC. I just could not see taking the subway to a job a could not stand.

I was up visiting family for Christmas and stuck in the snow. I decided I do not miss it and after three days I was itching to return to Costa Rica.

I think the law that truly made me angry was when City Counsel passed the law that made possession of tobacco on a job site that had an open asbestos removal permit to be illegal.

Think about that, possession of tobacco illegal!

Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness no longer applies.

Pura Vida!


----------



## sirxlaughs

And it finally happened. I'm speechless at the moment.

New York City bans smoking in parks and, well, basically everywhere - New York City - Salon.com

NYC Approves Smoking Ban in City Parks, Beaches - WNYC

NYC smoking ban extended to parks, Times Square - Yahoo! News


----------



## Jack Straw

Can't believe it.


----------



## WilsonRoa

they might as well make everyone drive electric cars as well.


----------



## Rock31

NYC just keeps getting better and better!

This is just stupid.


----------



## Jack Straw

Yeah, the benches on Ocean Pkwy by my house where I usually smoke a cigar are technically a public park, so now I can't smoke there. So if I want a cigar I have to drive to a B&M or cigar bar, which is not going to happen except once in a blue moon. ****!


----------



## Arnie

That's pretty sad. New York City has become the poster child for ultra-nannyism. Wasn't there a county in NY that banned donuts from a senior center a few years ago? Pathetic.


----------



## sirxlaughs

Anyone want to have an NYC park herf?


----------



## hoosiers2006

Sad, pathetic, and so on. Thank you NYC for setting the foundation for the rest of country to build on. Now legislation that was dieing, like here in IN an indoor smoking ban at restaraunts, now the peoples representatives will point to NYC, and argue they banned it in parks we just want to ban in restaraunts. Hell, next will be golf courses. Does any other freedom have so many rules in place to prohibit it? Maybe nudity.


----------



## sirxlaughs

hoosiers2006 said:


> Sad, pathetic, and so on. Thank you NYC for setting the foundation for the rest of country to build on. Now legislation that was dieing, like here in IN an indoor smoking ban at restaraunts, now the peoples representatives will point to NYC, and argue they banned it in parks we just want to ban in restaraunts. Hell, next will be golf courses. Does any other freedom have so many rules in place to prohibit it? Maybe nudity.


While I'm just as disappointed, NYC wasn't the first. It also won't be the last. LA enacted an outdoor ban last year, for example. By unanimous vote, no less.

Outdoor Smoking Ban for Los Angeles to Become Law - LAist


----------



## Rosie

sirxlaughs said:


> Anyone want to have an NYC park herf?


Yes. I'm there. Screw them. I see people smoking weed all the time with impunity. So, I'm gonna smoke anyway. If someone has a problem, they can call en effing cop. I guess that makes me an outlaw! :cb

Cheers,

Rosie


----------



## thatguy

Rosie said:


> Yes. I'm there. Screw them. I see people smoking weed all the time with impunity. So, I'm gonna smoke anyway. If someone has a problem, they can call en effing cop. I guess that makes me an outlaw! :cb
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rosie


But weed is a natural plant man. It can't be that bad if it is natural. Oh, wait...

I swear you have more rights in this country if you are a criminal or in jail.


----------



## Jack Straw

You know when I think about it, the last time I was smoking a cigar in Prospect Park, I was sitting reading on a bench by a pond with my girlfriend, who was knitting, and an artsy, progressive young lady came up and said that seeing such a classic scene made her very happy.

I will be smoking a cigar in Prospect Park tomorrow, I really hope someone tells me to put it out (law isn't in effect yet).


----------



## samsamsamm2003

Is it something about big cities that makes government officials a-holes? Its always one of those dumb yuppies I went to school with that pass this sort of legislation. Where are New Yorkers supposed to smoke? At least before they would just bring out a bunch of BS second hand smoke studies before they passed these laws, now it just seems they don't care.


----------



## Rosie

thatguy said:


> But weed is a natural plant man. It can't be that bad if it is natural. Oh, wait...
> 
> I swear you have more rights in this country if you are a criminal or in jail.


That's part of the problem. We BOTL are always lumped in with the cigarette smokers. I know a lot of people who don't mind cigar smoke but hate cigarette smoke. My girlfriend is one of them. In fact, the only time my house is stinky from smoke is when my cigarette smoking friends come over.

Cheers,

Rosie


----------



## Jack Straw

Funny you say that Rosie - if someone smokes half a cig in my apartment, I can smell it still the next day, in contrast to the many different kinds of pipe tobacco that are smoked here for an hour or more each day. Do you think it's the chemicals?


----------



## Rosie

Jack Straw said:


> Funny you say that Rosie - if someone smokes half a cig in my apartment, I can smell it still the next day, in contrast to the many different kinds of pipe tobacco that are smoked here for an hour or more each day. Do you think it's the chemicals?


Absolutely. Who knows what they put in those things? I'm no Joe Natural or anything, but I feel better smoking a natural product like cigars. There's no way they can be as bad for you as cigarettes.

Cheers,

Rosie


----------



## veteranvmb

I am literally so sad, to be beyond that. I almost have no reason for being with this ban. This is my one activity that I live for 6 months of the year. Driving to the park, beach, oceanside, where there are no people, and putting down my comfortable chair, (used to have my best 4 footed friend with me) a newspaper, a book, a radio in my ears, and high tides and green grass.
This is what I live for. I no longer have a reason for being. I do not know what I may do at this point? 
Take up jogging at age 63. I had run enough in my life for a thousand life times. I am too old, fat, frail, and in pain for this. 
Smoking my cigar or two in the day outside for five hours or so, was my life, and kept me sane, and out of the house. 
I am truly broken up about this. This is how I spent my weekends with the wife also during the summer. Sitting and watching the horses go by, and watching the cricket matches. I used to give one of the outfielders we befriended, and kept a lit cigar for him. At the end of the match in the late afternoon, he woul bring us 2 huge plates of indian food and a couple of beers. It was my life. 
Sorry for long post, but I am truly beside myself. F this Mayor, with the small balls, I will not know what to do with myself, except knock my head against the walls in my bedroom. I feel sad and broken and used up. 
I defended this country and my community for 30 years, risking everything, to preserve peoples rights. 
Now our government tells us, what we can do at every point. The government is supposed to preserve our rights, not dictate and oversee out rights in minutia. I just dont know what I am going to do.
J

.


----------



## Jack Straw

Jerry, my heart goes out to you. I would honestly contact someone at the NY Times or another paper, your perspective deserves to be heard. These people don't realize what they are doing, and how unjust it is.


----------



## veteranvmb

Jack Straw said:


> Jerry, my heart goes out to you. I would honestly contact someone at the NY Times or another paper, your perspective deserves to be heard. These people don't realize what they are doing, and how unjust it is.


 The wife retires 10/23/2013. 
At that point I am going off the grid with her. I am going to find me a secluded piece of land, move their, and do whatever the f I want at that point.
Ive had enough.

J


----------



## Jack Straw

Jerry, that's what I hope to do, only problem is I have about 40 years to go.


----------



## veteranvmb

Jack Straw said:


> Jerry, that's what I hope to do, only problem is I have about 40 years to go.


 Well we can meet up in 40 years then. I will be waiting for you. I will also 103. You might have to bring a shovel to find me. 
J


----------



## Rosie

Jerry, honestly, just keep on doing what you've been doing. Doucheberg has already said that this law won't be enforced by police, but rather they are counting on public pressure and shame. I don't know you, but you don't seem like the sort of man who can be swayed by public pressure. If someone gives you crap, tell them that you spent your life defending their rights, and you'll do as you please now. I'd be honored to share a smoke with you anytime. :usa2:

Cheers,

Rosie


----------



## veteranvmb

Rosie said:


> Jerry, honestly, just keep on doing what you've been doing. Doucheberg has already said that this law won't be enforced by police, but rather they are counting on public pressure and shame. I don't know you, but you don't seem like the sort of man who can be swayed by public pressure. If someone gives you crap, tell them that you spent your life defending their rights, and you'll do as you please now. I'd be honored to share a smoke with you anytime. :usa2:
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rosie


 Hi Rosie
Its true it wont be enforced by police. I would prefer that, as being retired they would never bother me. 
Buts its going to be policed by the park police. 
basically low life's, who don't qualify for anything else but giving people citations for dog poop. 
I am an open minded person, but the bulk of them are third world minorities, who only go and cite Caucasian people, as they feel they wont have any problems. 
You will never see them stop some african American dude with a pit bull, or a Latino with a rotti. They will find some older white guy, or any white female. 
They will be doing the enforcing, and they are all over the park, sitting down somewhere, eating potato chips and coca cola on their fat asses. 
This is what I will have to deal with. Flashing my tin, will not help me. It will not feel comfortable for me. 
Trying to explain service to our country would be foreign to them. Its a lose , lose proposition . 
I am fair minded, but this is my observations, and I have spent a life where my job duties is observation, and response. Its so sad this thing. The wife is upset for me. She cant afford to retire early, as severe reductions in her pension. I just dont know anymore.

J


----------



## sirxlaughs

veteranvmb said:


> I am literally so sad, to be beyond that. I almost have no reason for being with this ban. This is my one activity that I live for 6 months of the year. Driving to the park, beach, oceanside, where there are no people, and putting down my comfortable chair, (used to have my best 4 footed friend with me) a newspaper, a book, a radio in my ears, and high tides and green grass.
> This is what I live for. I no longer have a reason for being. I do not know what I may do at this point?
> Take up jogging at age 63. I had run enough in my life for a thousand life times. I am too old, fat, frail, and in pain for this.
> Smoking my cigar or two in the day outside for five hours or so, was my life, and kept me sane, and out of the house.
> I am truly broken up about this. This is how I spent my weekends with the wife also during the summer. Sitting and watching the horses go by, and watching the cricket matches. I used to give one of the outfielders we befriended, and kept a lit cigar for him. At the end of the match in the late afternoon, he woul bring us 2 huge plates of indian food and a couple of beers. It was my life.
> Sorry for long post, but I am truly beside myself. F this Mayor, with the small balls, I will not know what to do with myself, except knock my head against the walls in my bedroom. I feel sad and broken and used up.
> I defended this country and my community for 30 years, risking everything, to preserve peoples rights.
> Now our government tells us, what we can do at every point. The government is supposed to preserve our rights, not dictate and oversee out rights in minutia. I just dont know what I am going to do.
> J
> 
> .


This should be printed in the papers. All the best to you, Jerry. We still have yet to see how this new "law" pans out.


----------



## Rock31

I agree Jerry, that needs to be sent somewhere, people need to see what you just typed.


----------



## veteranvmb

Rock31 said:


> I agree Jerry, that needs to be sent somewhere, people need to see what you just typed.


 thanks to all, but no thanks. I am far behind my crusader days, and have no extra energy for aggravation. 
In this hard city we call new york, there is no fight against the politicians on this matter. There is strenght and money behind their undefeatable position as far as smoking in a public place, no matter how desolated.

J


----------



## Rock31

Well Jerry I hope we can meetup in March! And wish you and your lovely lady the best when you are able to move away and enjoy the peace and quiet of the woods


----------

